We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

I just read that the attorney hired by the Democrat-Farmer-Labor party said that Karen Monahan's allegations are unsubstantiated. Neither are Ford's. So the FBI will beat the bushes for some evidence in Ford's case, but there will be no call for further investigations in Monahan's case. The left will see no hypocrisy in that.

mudbug: Democrats tell us that you don't need evidence if a woman accuses a man of sexual abuse.

A single person's testimony is generally sufficient for reasonable suspicion warranting an investigation.

What level of proof is required to turn down a job applicant will depend on the position, but yelling at the interviewers, decrying so-called enemies including the interviewers while threatening consequences, and saying he likes beer, he likes beer, he likes beer when confronted about his drinking, may not be the best strategy for getting an assistant manager job at Denny's — but as a justice on the Supreme Court, sure, why not.

Mike K: Would you mind telling us what evidence you have of Kavanaugh's "drunken boorish behavior ?"

A number of witnesses have come forward with information about Kavanaugh's drunken boorish behavior, and are willing to say so to the FBI.

If these witnesses, as you conclude, are willing to come forward, who are they, how did you come to be in possession of this fact, and to whom are they, in some future sense, going to testify?

Words having meaning and so forth.

Or is this another example of the Falsebot constitutional ethic that states that Possible Evidence by those bound to Proving Evidence Not in Evidence constitutes Ongoing Investigation? Because then let's all get aboard the Gaslight Express.

No, the point is that when someone claims they were sexually assaulted, especially when there is an apparent pattern of behavior, then an investigation is justified.

Even ordinary people are required to show some decorum when confronting their accusers, an everyday occurrence in the legal world, but much more so as someone who aspires to the highest court in the land. Kavanaugh dissembled about his boozing, even made misleading statements about the meaning of common slang terms in order to avoid admitting to his behavior as a young man. He railed about conspiracies, and threatened consequences for those he considers his enemies.

Who has an apparent pattern of (sexual assault) behavior? Three people, each less believable than the one before, all with no evidence does not constitute anything similar to a pattern of behavior. The most believable (being generous) accuser, Ford, has lied in her statement in front of the Judiciary Committee about when her home remodel was and the reason for a second front door, has given inconsistent testimony about her age when the alleged attack occurred (anywhere from the early 15 to late teens), she couldn't recall key details of that evening, she gave contradictory stories about how she got home, and none of the people alleged to have been at the party support any of her story. She doesn't remember enough about the evening to be able to verify whether the incident actually occurred - pretty handy. I'm don't know why anybody should believe her.

The Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee all claimed to believe Ford over Kavanaugh and even stated that Kavanaugh was evil before they heard from either of them. In fact, there were many Democrats who pledged to stop the nomination before the process began. Who considers who an enemy?

"This is par for the course when a great power is in decay."

Here I agree with you. When ten members of the Judiciary Committee decide that someone is guilty before any evidence is shown or testimony is heard, you're not that far from destroying the judicial system.

mudbug: Three people, each less believable than the one before, all with no evidence does not constitute anything similar to a pattern of behavior.

More than three witness can testify to drunken boorish behavior. Three can testify to sexual assault. That is a pattern, more than sufficient to justify an investigation.

mudbug: The most believable (being generous) accuser, Ford, has lied in her statement in front of the Judiciary Committee about when her home remodel was and the reason for a second front door

You might want to read the actual transcript rather than relying on right wing conspiracy sites.

QUOTE:

Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone — the specific details — until May 2012, during a couples counseling session.

The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail.

mudbug: has given inconsistent testimony about her age when the alleged attack occurred (anywhere from the early 15 to late teens), she couldn't recall key details of that evening, she gave contradictory stories about how she got home, and none of the people alleged to have been at the party support any of her story.

That's typical of traumatic experiences. People remember the details of the event, but not the surrounding circumstances. Significance drives memory.

Christopher B: The second front door appears to have been added years prior to their therapy, and there are other explanations for why it was added.

The building permit was in 2008, but she indicated the remodeling occurred over a long period of time. Of course they would use the door. But sure, investigate that too. Everyone's got something to hide, even nice psychologists and circuit court judges who like beer.

"Palo Alto city records show that a building permit for an additional room and exterior door was issued to Ford and her husband on Feb. 4, 2008 — more than four years before the May 2012 therapy session where, she says, she first identified Kavanaugh as her attacker.

All the remodeling, including a new bathroom, was completed by February 2010. The only additional permits issued to Ford at her Palo Alto address are for "solar panels" on the roof, a "solar hot water system” in the garage, and an “electric vehicle charge station” for the driveway -- all of which were issued after 2012.

Other documents, including health care-provider registration records, reveal that a marriage counselor listed Ford’s home address as her place of employment, ostensibly using the extra room and door for her clinical practice. That marriage therapist, Sylvia Adkins Randall, sold the home to the Fords in 2007, but continued to maintain the address for her business."

Doors to a home can be used as entrances or merely in an ornamental capacity, and in any event require a building permit when added to a given dwelling. Indeed, their construction can trigger memories of sexual assaults, even 36 years on. For this reason, there must be an investigation ...

Exactly. Falsebot gaslights as an instinctive tic. No cure has yet been found. Or sought.

Above, Falsebot actually gaslights in plain view:

Human: Even partisan legal tools report that allegations from its party are unsubstantiated.

Falsebot: The alleging party claimed to have a video of the alleged abuse but refused to provide it to investigators.

Human: Allegations from another party also lack evidence or corroboration.

Falsebot: Kavanaugh seems to exhibit a pattern of drunken, boorish behavior as a young man. There is an ongoing investigation.

And there you have it. Falsbot tacitly admits - 20 times a day - that all it's doing is gaslighting. The closest Falsebot gets to the Trvth is its special construct, Possible Cause, and its accessory legal principle, Proving Evidence Not in Evidence, both rules Falsebot unleashed upon an unsuspecting public - prior to its more recent Ongoing Investigation - here in this esteemed gathering of somewhat sentient humanoids and various livestock.

Remodels don't take two years, Falsebot. Doors don't take even two days. Building pros - and even amateurs - will tell you that. No need for them to consult any of your "right wing conspiracy sites", unless if by "right wing conspiracy sites" you mean Lowes Depot. In a manner of speaking we could make a general exception then, Falsebot.

On the other hand renting your extra room to students and whatnot lasts for years ... and false statements at least that, if you catch my drift and I know you do. Or would if you were a Truehuman.

Given your proclivity with drolly pronouncing elaborate versions of your special gas-lit reality all the live-long day, how did you come to 1) miss that, 2) deny it, and 3) refuse to reveal it?

People remember the details of the event, but not the surrounding circumstances. Significance drives memory.

I'd rate location as a pretty significant detail of an event. People with traumatic experiences often seek to avoid the location of the event. Ford's inability to remember the location strikes me as a significant defect in her story.

Christopher: I'd rate location as a pretty significant detail of an event. People with traumatic experiences often seek to avoid the location of the event.

She remembers the people in the room, the door, the hallway, the bathroom, the stairs; the areas associated with the assault. Again, this is typical for a trauma victim. While heading home, she wouldn't be thinking of the route she took, but reliving the attack. In any case, you may discount the allegation, but it is more than sufficient justification for an investigation.

Three people can testify to sexual assault. More witnesses can testify that he frequently drank to the point of incoherence. Consider this witness:

QUOTE:

In a 2014 speech to Yale Law students (a transcript of which was posted on Twitter by a Washington Post reporter), Kavanaugh spoke fondly of two episodes during his time at the law school that involved heavy drinking. In one, he said, he organized a bus trip for a baseball game and night of barhopping in Boston, during which students did “group chugs” from a beer keg — “only for us to return falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.”

QUOTE:

Another time, he said, he was at a class banquet during his final year, where he had “more than a few beers” beforehand, and a drunk friend fell and broke a table before getting up and being refused any more drinks by the bartender.

Now, perhaps he has changed. If so, kudos to him. But during the hearing he displayed the behavior of an alcoholic not willing to face the facts of his addiction, the same self-justifying prep he was as a young man. He lied to the committee. He lied to himself.

Key word is "can" and two will not.
Swetnick is a loon and no one has been able to verify anything she says. She alleged repeated gang rapes. Yet there are still no other witnesses. ""NBC News, for the record, has not been able to independently verify her claims."

As for Ramirez, She was drinking heavily at the time. She confesses that her memory contains “gaps.” She even told other classmates that she wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh. No one else could even confirm he was at the party where the incident allegedly occurred.

Lots of people drink in college. Kavanaugh drank to excess, and is accused of a pattern of drunken boorish behavior and sexual assault, then dissembling about it before a Senate committee.

“I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation,” [url=https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/pitIljkLeIyv97R3dapm0G4qmV4=/0x0:6250x4167/920x613/filters:focal(4425x1398:5425x2398)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61579823/cal_wlogo_2x3_03.1538157078.jpg]Kavanaugh said[url].

Hank_M: Tell me Z, why was her social history scrubbed from the internet prior to the hearing? Further, why was her yearbook also "disappeared'?

It's normal protocol when going public to scrub social media accounts to minimize damage by trolls to yourself and to those who know you. A yearbook can't be "disappeared" as nearly everyone in the school has a copy. None of this is relevant, of course.

Hank_M: You're big on conspiracy's, explain that to us.

How is scrubbing one's own social media account a conspiracy? Kavanaugh, on the other hand, blamed Democrats, the Left, anti-Trumpers, and the Clintons, for allegations made by individuals.

Given the cabal of leftist financiers behind the frame-Kavanaugh debacle being carried out by leftists for the sake of power and money, us normal humans find your habitually obtuse deflections each and every day to be to be chronic gaslighting.

Bill Carson: Attending a real party - held at a certain time and place and involving people (plural!) who remember the event - doesn't establish the existence of an uncorroborated party.

Brett Kavanaugh: "None of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise." Yet Kavanaugh's own calendar shows him attending a gathering that included many of the people she identified.

Then there's the reference to Devil's Triangle, which he claimed was a drinking game. But no one anywhere had ever heard of such a game until Kavanaugh invented it during the Senate hearing. And as the sexual assault allegation concerns a Devil's Triangle, sex between two men and a woman, it is highly relevant that he lied about this.

That he dissembled about his being an "obnoxious drunk", and that he lied about not knowing who Bart O'Kavanaugh was, not to mention "FFFFF".

Correct: It does not matter. The party described in Kavanaugh's calendar actually happened; that described by Ford is claimed to have happened only by Ford. One real party and one - at the current level of corroboration - imaginary one.

This Kavanaugh business is gonna work out for Zachriel and his side about as well as the 2016 Presidential Election did.

If, after all of this, you're going to hang your hat on one of many definitions of "Devil's Triangle", you have my pity. I'll have to resign myself to letting you bask in the glow of Hillary Clinton's Presidency, Merrick Garland's successful appointment to the Supreme Court, and the fact that Bret Kavanaugh will never serve likewise. Good day.

Anybody can testify to anything. Mere accusations are worthless and do not amount to a pattern of anything except people willing, for whatever reason, to accuse someone of something. What if several people accused you of rape. What that be a pattern of behavior?

mudbug: The Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee all claimed to believe Ford over Kavanaugh and even stated that Kavanaugh was evil before they heard from either of them. In fact, there were many Democrats who pledged to stop the nomination before the process began. Who considers who an enemy?

(crickets...)

Drunken boorish behavior in high school!!! OMG!! Should Justice Breyer's arrest for underage drinking be disqualifying for him to sit on the SCOTUS?

Z: That's typical of traumatic experiences. People remember the details of the event, but not the surrounding circumstances. Significance drives memory.

Not in my experience. I've known two women where were raped - not groped. They could tell you every detail of that night. But beyond that, what you're saying is that if a woman (or a man?) accuses someone of some heinous crime, if they say it was traumatic, their testimony doesn't have to be consistent and they don't have to present any evidence? Those people who accuse you of rape claimed you traumatized them. They have inconsistent stories and no evidence. The people who they said were there claim no knowledge of the incident. Does that mean they should still be believed anyway?

Sure. But if someone accuses another person of sexual assault, it usually leads to an investigation. It's called reasonable suspicion.

mudbug: Mere accusations are worthless

That is incorrect. First-person testimony is considered evidence in every court.

mudbug: What if several people accused you of rape. What that be a pattern of behavior?

If several people accuse someone of rape, then there certainly should be an investigation. If they are false accusations, then the accusers should be prosecuted, but unless you can show some sort of collusion, then multiple witnesses is considered strong evidence.

mudbug: The Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee all claimed to believe Ford over Kavanaugh and even stated that Kavanaugh was evil before they heard from either of them.

All Democrats on the Committee said he was evil?

mudbug: In fact, there were many Democrats who pledged to stop the nomination before the process began.

Sure. They don't like the direction Kavanaugh would take the court. Of course they are going to oppose his nomination, especially after they feel they were robbed over the Garland nomination during the Obama Administration.

mudbug: Drunken boorish behavior in high school!!!

As it is part of the investigation of drunken sexual assault, it is certainly relevant.

mudbug: Should Justice Breyer's arrest for underage drinking be disqualifying for him to sit on the SCOTUS?

Not necessarily, that is, unless it indicates an ongoing problem. Nor should Kavanaugh's underage drinking in isolation be disqualifying — but lying about it probably should be.

mudbug: Not in my experience.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Most trauma victims have fragmentary memory of the events. They focus on, and remember the gun. They may not remember what they had for lunch, or the weather outside, or even the face of the perpetrator (unless it is someone they know), which is why so many criminal identifications are wrong.

mudbug: But beyond that, what you're saying is that if a woman (or a man?) accuses someone of some heinous crime, if they say it was traumatic, their testimony doesn't have to be consistent and they don't have to present any evidence?

As we have repeatedly stated, a single accusation is not sufficient to constitute proof, but may represent justification for an investigation. Showing a pattern of behavior is much stronger evidence, but may still be insufficient to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, however, the standard isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Few would hire someone for a sensitive position when there are multiple open accusations of sexual assault, at least until there is a full and complete investigation. Gee whiz. After the way he acted in his "job interview", it's doubtful he could get a job as assistant manager at Denny's.

Z: Most trauma victims have fragmentary memory of the events. They focus on, and remember the gun.

She said, "I may not remember what day of the week it was, or even what month, but I will never forget running to escape, the gun or the stubby hairy fingers of the man who put that gun to my head. To this day, I still cringe when I see men with fingers like that."

Next thing you know, he'll be accused of doing Satanic sacrifices at a daycare.

It's not about what he did or didn't do - it's about stopping him by any means possible. If they've got to shred their own credibility and burn away a lot of nominal Dems by their repulsive behavior, well - the ends justify the means... don't they?

One lunatic came up with a “recovered memory” story that keeps changing, and can’t be corroborated in any detail — what little detail there is, and there isn’t much. And she did a polygraph test that doesn’t actually address anything significant — that’s important. It indicates that she is lying, not just crazy, and her handlers know it. We know she lied (or was it her handlers?) about flying. On virtually every point that can be checked, you find bullshit.

No prosecutor in America would waste any time on that. She’s a crazy stalker.

The only plausible claim that’s been made is that Kavanaugh drank in high school and college, exactly like the rest of us.

But he’s this week’s Great Scapegoat, so, even though you know nothing at all about him, you hate him with a psychotic intensity. He is the repository for all the world’s evil, until your attention span gives out and you find another one.

For most of history, great powers led by using military power to control other nations. After WWII, the U.S. had a different idea. America would lead the free world as the first among equals. The children have grown up, and now stand as full equals, full of youthful vigor. They still look to America for leadership, but faced with the decline in its relative power, instead of aging gracefully, the U.S. is acting out.

Jones: May I please have your view as to why America is, in your view, a great power in decay?.

Don't misunderstand. American culture is vibrant, and can renew itself, but it can only do so while recognizing that all people have a right to a say in the future of the world, working with one another to solve common problems.

'The goal posts keep shifting. But the goal hasn't moved an inch. The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close,' McConnell said
He added: 'We'll be voting this week'
That vote will likely be Friday or Saturday

The first was to make Kavanaugh guilty in the court of public opinion, which would presumably make him an unpalatable nominee.

Barring that, they are using the accusations to try and run out the clock. If they can stall the nomination until they control the Senate in January, they can sit on any nomination until 2020 when a dem is elected and they can install one of their own.

All that counts now is that they got a supplemental FBI investigation AFTER Kavanugh testified under oath. All they need is one minor discrepancy between the FBI supplemental report and BK's testimony, and it's over.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: